Deschutes County commissioners back appeal of state wildfire‑hazard mapping for thousands of properties

The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners voted at its Feb. 20 meeting to support submitting an appeal of the state’s wildfire‑hazard map on behalf of properties in Deschutes County. The motion, offered during a lengthy discussion on state mapping and wildfire policy, asked staff to file an appeal form that the board would sign “on behalf of” the county’s affected property owners and to prepare related public communications.

The board heard legal advice from Dave Doyle, Deschutes County counsel, who said the administrative rules are ambiguous about whether a local government may appeal mappings on behalf of private properties. Doyle recommended broad disclaimers and clear public messaging so property owners understand that individuals should still file their own appeals if they wish.

Commissioners and speakers discussed competing concerns: some emphasized that inconsistent or inaccurate mapping could harm landowners and urged a county appeal to draw attention to mapping errors; others said the priority should be on programs that directly reduce wildfire risk, such as defensible‑space requirements, technical assistance and treatment programs funded by state legislation. Several speakers also said insurance companies use proprietary risk models and are not relying solely on the state map when pricing coverage.

The motion approved by the board (language described in the meeting included referencing the county’s count of properties affected, cited in the discussion as 21,058) asked staff to draft a county‑filed appeal form and a press release clarifying that the county’s action is intended to highlight concerns and that individual property owners should pursue their own appeals where appropriate. Commissioners asked county staff to circulate the drafted language for review before filing.

County counsel advised that appeals must meet procedural deadlines and that some state officials might withdraw the maps before contested‑case hearings, but he could not say unequivocally whether a county‑level appeal on behalf of thousands of properties would be accepted. Commissioners directed staff to proceed with drafting and to emphasize disclaimers and outreach so property owners understand their individual appeal rights.

Ending: The board instructed staff to draft the appeal language and public guidance and to return the draft to the board; commissioners also encouraged property owners concerned about their classifications to submit individual appeals.